Jurispruden tiol – Tomorrow's cases Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.
Income Tax
"stock appreciation rights" different from “stock options” – redemption of stock appreciation taxable under salary; if it is not covered under salary, it would be covered under “income from other sources” High Court and Supreme Court judges are not employees, but their salary is taxably under heading ‘salary'- ITAT SB
The Special Bench of the Tribunal, in a landmark judgement decided an issue for which there is no judicial precedence.
Tribunal expresses regret for delay in judgement:
But we will start at the end. Have you ever come across judges expressing regret for delay in delivering the judgement? This is exactly what happened in this case, where in the last para of the order, the tribunal observed,
As we part the matter, we would like to place on record the fact that though this appeal was finally heard in the month of April 2007, our decision thereon could only be finalized only in the month of December 2007. The unusual delay in disposing of this Special Bench matter was due to the fact that shortly after the appeal was heard, one of us (i.e. the author) was transferred out of Mumbai benches and the meeting of the Members constituting this Special Bench, to discuss and finalise the draft order, was inordinately delayed. There were certain aspects of the matter on which we could not immediately reach a consensus in the source of our discussions immediately after the hearing was over, and, therefore, need of further discussions on those issues was felt. However, due to certain reasons beyond our control, we could not meet to discuss these issues. It was only pursuant to Hon'ble President being kind enough to facilitate a meeting of all the three of us for the said purpose, that the Members constituting this Special Bench could finally meet on 10th December 2007 to discuss those issues as also deliberate on the proposed draft order. It is in this backdrop that there is a delay in disposal of this appeal, which is regretted.
Though originally only a particular issue was referred to the special Bench, in certain peculiar circumstances, the whole appeal was transferred to the Special Bench.
JAYALLALITHA CASE -Condonation of Delay – delay due to negligence and inaction of officers – cannot be condoned: “Set aside” means “annulled”; Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to pass any further order: ITAT
THESE cross appeals of the Revenue and the Assessee are directed against different orders of the CIT (Appeals), Chennai.
Condonation of Delay of 2569 days.
The Revenue filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay of 7 years on the ground that,
The Revenue while perusing the CIT (A)'s order in ITA No. 1, 5 & 7, dated 15.9.98 was under the bonafide impression that setting aside of assessment has conferred the jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In view of the recent judicial pronouncement to the effect that setting aside of assessments by CIT (A) without giving any direction for fresh assessment amounts to annulment of assessment, it is felt necessary to contest the impugned order of the CIT (A).
Later they realised that the delay was actually 7 years and 18 days and so they filed another application seeking condonation of 7 years and 18 days and not 7 years as prayed earlier!
What would have happened if the Tribunal had condoned the delay of 7 years as prayed for in the first application?
Careless drafting?
The Tribunal noted that both the affidavits have been filed by higher officers. Actually, the delay to be filed in days and not in years and this is not expected from such Higher Authorities of the Income-tax Department.
Central Excise
Miscellaneous applications for rectification of Miscellaneous order, passed on ROM application in respect of final order, is not maintainable: Tribunal
FIRST things first. Usage of reiteration is purely intentional.
“ Chahiye hi Chahiye ” Kellogg 's chocos with the goodness of whole wheat is enriched with Calcium Shakti ! It has goodness of 2 chappatis and Calcium of 2 glasses of milk and is further enriched with 11 essential vitamins and minerals – all in that great yummy taste you love!” [Source www.chocos.co.in ]
So, what's missing – nothing Sir, only a mention of the content of “ Cocoa ”.
Be that as it may, we are not interested in saying “ chahiye hi chahiye ” of this word “cocoa” in the advertisement for a related issue is at present hanging fire on the central excise side, as far as we know. In a related matter, Netizens may also like to browse through the Bombay High Court decision reported by us as wherein the Court had ruled that an order passed in violation of natural justice is void & not curable.
Sometime after that, the Tribunal, WZB , Ahmedabad [ ] while rejecting the appeal filed by the company held that Chocos ' which is being marketed by them as “Crunchy Chocolate Wheat Scoops ”, is properly classifiable under Heading 18.04 viz. Other food preparations containing cocoa, as held by the lower authorities & not under heading 19.04 as contended by the appellant.
Rebate – Revenue wins in appeal in High Court but contempt proceedings against JS, Review continues for differing with High Court : Madras High Court
THE respondent claimed refund of rebate amount to the tune of Rs.6 ,84,590 /-. The Revenue, by their order dated 30th Oct., 2003, rejected such prayer. The prayer of the respondent having been allowed by the single Judge, the present appeal has been preferred.
The case of the respondent Company before the writ court was that the company cleared 2000 Kgs ., of Cresol Chloride on 29th Dec., 1990, on payment of duty of Rs.5,35,500 /= in GPI No.20 to one M/ s.Colour Chem Ltd. The said M/ s.Colour Chem Ltd ., took credit in their RG 23-A Part II account as an input and resold the entire quantity on 11th Dec., 1992 to the company by paying in terms with Rule 57 F (1) (ii) of the Central Excise Rules. In this background, the company requested the Assistant Commissioner, Pondicherry Division for re-entry of Cresol Chloride for reprocessing the same. It filed necessary D3 intimation under Rule 173-H, whereinafter the Assistant Commissioner, vide communication dated 30th Dec., 1992, granted permission under Rule 173-H for re-entry and reprocessing. The company exported the material with additional quantity of 5000 Kgs ., of Cresol Chloride under AR4 No.30 . Though duty was paid with regard to others, no duty was paid on 2000 Kgs . of Cresol Chloride on which duty was earlier paid and was returned by M/ s.Colour Chem Ltd., after reprocessing.
Until tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com